This is happening to me as well.
uname -r
6.8.9-200.fc39.x86_64
but
there is no /etc/cron.daily/google-chrome
(the directory exists but only contains google-earth-pro)
On 2/14/24 08:57, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 07:46:15 -0500
Neal Becker wrote:
The GPG keys listed for the "googl
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 9:17 AM Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 09:06:44 -0500
> Neal Becker wrote:
>
> > running /etc/cron.daily/google-chrome gives:
>
> I just ignore any gibberish it prints and do the update again,
> always seems to work for me.
> --
>
Thanks! Rubbish ignored. I to
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 09:06:44 -0500
Neal Becker wrote:
> running /etc/cron.daily/google-chrome gives:
I just ignore any gibberish it prints and do the update again,
always seems to work for me.
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
T
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 8:58 AM Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 07:46:15 -0500
> Neal Becker wrote:
>
> > The GPG keys listed for the "google-chrome" repository are already
> > installed but they are not correct for this package.
>
> After getting this many times, I finally figured out I
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 07:46:15 -0500
Neal Becker wrote:
> The GPG keys listed for the "google-chrome" repository are already
> installed but they are not correct for this package.
After getting this many times, I finally figured out I need to
manually run /etc/cron.daily/google-chrome to get new ke
Today's dnf update fails with:
The GPG keys listed for the "google-chrome" repository are already
installed but they are not correct for this package.
Check that the correct key URLs are configured for this repository..
Failing package is: google-chrome-stable-121.0.6167.184-1.x
Hi
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 15:11:06 -0700 richard emberson wrote:
> What is the problem (aside from the fact that I interrupted the update) and
> How can I recover?
Try first to clean duplicates with: dnf removes --duplicates
I'll personally call it like that to see what would be done, answer no
to
A new issue is best started in a separate thread instead of hijacking
someone else's thread, as you did. It keeps threads neat and tidy too.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 15:11:06 -0700
richard emberson wrote:
> I had a "dnf update" interrupted.
At what stage was it interrupted? If it was during update
Running "dnf update --allowerasing results in:
Running transaction check
Transaction check succeeded.
Running transaction test
The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful
transaction.
You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'.
Error: Transaction t
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 5:12 PM richard emberson
wrote:
> I had a "dnf update" interrupted.
>
> Running "dnf clean all" and then "dnf update" again results in:
>
> Running transaction check
> Transaction check succeeded.
> Running transaction test
> The downloaded packages were saved in cache unt
I had a "dnf update" interrupted.
Running "dnf clean all" and then "dnf update" again results in:
Running transaction check
Transaction check succeeded.
Running transaction test
The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful
transaction.
You can remove cached packages by
> On 26 Jul 2022, at 17:43, Patrick Dupre wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> During a dnf updade fo a fc34, I got
> 3 errors message like
> timed out waiting for device (I do not have the rest of the message, there
> was a zm!)
>
> Then I restared the dnf updade,
> and got:
> Error: An rpm exception occ
Hello,
During a dnf updade fo a fc34, I got
3 errors message like
timed out waiting for device (I do not have the rest of the message, there was
a zm!)
Then I restared the dnf updade,
and got:
Error: An rpm exception occurred: package not installed
and I launched
dnf update
Last metadata expira
(on Friday, July 31 at 12:50pm mountain time, I wrote)
> Am I correct in concluding at least one server was not available?
That question was referring to Thursday's "rkhunter --update" run, not
Friday's.
Since Thursday's problem went away on its own, I'm tagging this CLOSED.
I thank Michael
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:55:53 -, home user wrote:
>
> Were you able to access those URLs manually with your favorite web browser
> or download tool like wget/curl?
Thank-you, Michael, for your reply.
It did not occur to me to try that yesterday. The logs gave no hint that a
server was dow
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:55:53 -, home user wrote:
> [10:44:44] Checking file mirrors.dat [ Update failed ]
> [10:44:44] Info: Executing download command '/usr/bin/wget -q -O
> "/var/lib/rkhunter/rkhunter.upd.rJwBkFr06W"
> http://rkhunter.sourceforge.net/1.4/programs_b
(f31, gnome; just patched)
Before doing an rkhunter scan, I do an rkhunter database update. Today, that's
not working:
-
bash.6[~]: rkhunter --update
[ Rootkit Hunter version 1.4.6 ]
Checking rkhunter data files...
Checking file mirrors.dat [ Update failed
On 8/2/19 12:54 PM, cen wrote:
error: unpacking of archive failed on file
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/backports.ssl_match_hostname-3.5.0.1-py2.7.egg-info:
cpio: File from package already exists as a directory in system
tips?
rpm -qf
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/backports.ssl_matc
Error unpacking rpm package
python2-backports-ssl_match_hostname-3.5.0.1-11.fc30.noarch
Installing : rlottie-0-2.20190707git0a43020.fc30.x86_64 140/537
error: unpacking of archive failed on file
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/backports.ssl_match_hostname-3.5.0.1-py2.7.egg-info:
cpio:
Thank you. I did reinstall the packages. With the addition of a 'dnf
clean all; afterwards seems to have resolved the issue!
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 3:05 PM stan wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 10:00:29 -0500
> Willis Yonker wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I did a fresh install of Fedora 29 a few weeks
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 10:00:29 -0500
Willis Yonker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I did a fresh install of Fedora 29 a few weeks ago. It seems to work
> fine except now dnf seems to not want to use the fedora repo. If I
> remove the fedora.repo file, or even disable the fedora repo in the
> file, it works. An
Hi,
I did a fresh install of Fedora 29 a few weeks ago. It seems to work fine
except now dnf seems to not want to use the fedora repo. If I remove the
fedora.repo file, or even disable the fedora repo in the file, it works.
Any help would be appreciated!
Thank you!
If I run dnf -v update, here
Hi everyone,
I have the following message when I select the update function
in Eclipse:
An error occurred while uninstalling
session context was:(profile=SDKProfile,
phase=org.eclipse.equinox.internal.p2.engine.phases.Uninstall,
operand=[R]org.eclipse.platform_root 4.7.2.v20171217-1438 -->
I used the --allowerasing flag and it worked on my systems. Tnx evrybody
Antonio Montagnani
Linux Fedora 27(Workstation)
da/from Gmail
2018-05-01 21:25 GMT+02:00 Jeffrey Ross :
>
>
>
>
> On 2018-05-01 15:02, john q wrote:
>
> Read this Antonio: https://fedoramagazine.org/
> upgrading-fedora-27-
On 2018-05-01 15:02, john q wrote:
> Read this Antonio: https://fedoramagazine.org/upgrading-fedora-27-fedora-28/
>
> "If you have issues when upgrading because of packages without updates,
> broken dependencies, or retired packages, add the _‐‐allowerasing_ flag when
> typing the above command
Read this Antonio: https://fedoramagazine.org/upgrading-fedora-27-fedora-28/
"If you have issues when upgrading because of packages without updates,
broken dependencies, or retired packages, add the *‐‐allowerasing* flag
when typing the above command. This will allow DNF to remove packages that
ma
this is the full output
dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=28
Before you continue ensure that your system is fully upgraded by running
"dnf --refresh upgrade". Do you want to continue [y/N]: y
Ultima verifica della scadenza dei metadati: 0:00:00 fa il mar 01 mag 2018
20:24:38 CEST.
When updating by dnf to F28, process fails saying that nss-pem has an
inferior architecture (I have both i686 and 64 packages). Any idea??
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproj
> On 10/03/17 19:10, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> > I uninstalled freeipmi, and then
> >
> > dnf install nut
>
>
> I thought people told you this in an earlier response
>
> You don't want this (please make sure you scroll down)
>
>
>
> [root@acer ~]# dnf install nut
> Last metadata exp
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 13:10:35 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> I uninstalled freeipmi, and then
>
> dnf install nut
That is not the suggested command.
> freeipmi is needed by nut!!
>
> /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-updates-testing.repo:enabled=0
> /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-updates-testing.repo:enabled=0
>
On 10/03/17 19:10, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> I uninstalled freeipmi, and then
>
> dnf install nut
I thought people told you this in an earlier response
You don't want this (please make sure you scroll down)
[root@acer ~]# dnf install nut
Last metadata expiration check: 3:30:48 ago o
82 44
189A, avenue Maurice Schumann | | 59140 Dunkerque, France
===
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 at 12:36 PM
> From: "Michael Schwendt"
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subjec
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:38:57 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> dnf update nut
> Package nut available, but not installed.
> No match for argument: nut
> * Maybe you meant: nut
> Error: No packages marked for upgrade.
Now we're entering the space of "DNF mess", such as hiding some things
from the us
ue, France
===
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 at 1:11 AM
> From: "Matthew Miller"
> To: "Community support for Fedora users"
> Subject: Re: update fails
>
> On Mon, Oct 0
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 23:50:25 +0200
"Patrick Dupre" wrote:
> I do not know what to do.
What's the output of this command?
grep enabled /etc/yum.repos.d/*.repo
If nothing else, you can go here,
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=970458
download the appropriate binary rpms, an
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 11:50:25PM +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:
[...]
> Installing:
> nutx86_64 2.7.4-7.fc26 fedora 1.8
> M
> Installing dependencies:
> nut-client x86_64 2.7.4-14.fc26 updates 212
> k
> Transaction Summa
189A, avenue Maurice Schumann | | 59140 Dunkerque, France
===
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 at 10:44 PM
> From: "Michael Schwendt"
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: up
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 22:28:26 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> dnf install --refresh nut
It makes no sense to run that command before you see the latest packages
available in the "updates" repo.
Also, adding --refresh again and again only forces dnf to redownload
the repo metadata again and again, wh
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 21:23:44 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:
>
> > Sure,
> >
> > dnf list nut\*
> > Repository mgeups has no mirror or baseurl set.
> > Last metadata expiration check: 3 days, 9:44:08 ago on Fri 29 Sep 2017
> > 11:36:48 AM CEST.
> > Installed Packages
> > nut-cgi.x86_64
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 21:23:44 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> Sure,
>
> dnf list nut\*
> Repository mgeups has no mirror or baseurl set.
> Last metadata expiration check: 3 days, 9:44:08 ago on Fri 29 Sep 2017
> 11:36:48 AM CEST.
> Installed Packages
> nut-cgi.x86_64 2.7.4-14
ue, France
===
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 at 9:15 PM
> From: "Michael Schwendt"
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: update fails
>
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 21:27:25 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:
>
> >
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 21:27:25 +0200, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> Installing:
> nutx86_642.7.4-7.fc26
> fedora1.8 M
>
This is only an old package in the base 'fedora' repo.
Why don't you troubleshoot this a bit more to lis
The problem is that the new version of nut depends on a new version of freeipmi
( https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5f8e18be61 ) which is
still in updates-testing. Installing it manually allows nut to update. The
freeipmi update has been eligible to be pushed to stable for week
On 09/29/2017 12:27 PM, Patrick Dupre wrote:
Error: Transaction check error:
file /usr/sbin/upsmon from install of nut-2.7.4-7.fc26.x86_64 conflicts with
file from package nut-client-2.7.4-14.fc26.x86_64
file /usr/sbin/upssched from install of nut-2.7.4-7.fc26.x86_64 conflicts
with file f
Fax: 03 28 65 82 44
189A, avenue Maurice Schumann | | 59140 Dunkerque, France
===
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 at 8:26 PM
> From: "Samuel Sieb"
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
&
On 09/29/2017 11:05 AM, Patrick Dupre wrote:
I am sorry,
This is all what I get.
Is something missing?
Downloading Packages:
nut-2.7.4-7.fc26.x86_64.rpm 5.4 MB/s | 1.8 MB 00:00
Total
03 28 65 82 44
189A, avenue Maurice Schumann | | 59140 Dunkerque, France
===
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 at 6:24 PM
> From: "Samuel Sieb"
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject
On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 18:12:28 +0200
"Patrick Dupre" wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I get the following error when I try to update my fedora.
>
> Error: Transaction check error:
> file /usr/sbin/upsmon from install of
> nut-client-2.7.4-14.fc26.x86_64 conflicts with file from package
> nut-2.7.4-7.fc26.x8
On 09/29/2017 09:12 AM, Patrick Dupre wrote:
I get the following error when I try to update my fedora.
Error: Transaction check error:
file /usr/sbin/upsmon from install of nut-client-2.7.4-14.fc26.x86_64
conflicts with file from package nut-2.7.4-7.fc26.x86_64
file /usr/sbin/upssched fro
Hello,
I get the following error when I try to update my fedora.
Error: Transaction check error:
file /usr/sbin/upsmon from install of nut-client-2.7.4-14.fc26.x86_64
conflicts with file from package nut-2.7.4-7.fc26.x86_64
file /usr/sbin/upssched from install of nut-client-2.7.4-14.fc26.x86
On Wed, 2014-12-24 at 14:53 +, John Austin wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have a fully updated F21 installation as follows
> lightdm, XFCE and I am using evolution and spamassassin
>
> I am using home directories mounted over NFS and hence
> the user's evolution configuration is identical when logged into
Hi
I have a fully updated F21 installation as follows
lightdm, XFCE and I am using evolution and spamassassin
I am using home directories mounted over NFS and hence
the user's evolution configuration is identical when logged into
an F20(paxos) or F21(lefkada) machine
Whenever a user on F21 recei
my Galaxy SIII
Original message
From: Ed Greshko
Date:02/20/2014 23:06 (GMT-06:00)
To: Community support for Fedora users
Subject: Re: Fedora 19 yum update fails "invalid data stream" -- now completely
stuck
On 02/21/14 11:48, Bob Kinney wrote:
>
> No one wants to
On 02/21/14 11:48, Bob Kinney wrote:
>
> No one wants to take a swing at this one?
Try
cd /var/cache/yum/i386/19/
mv fedora fedora-orig
yum check-update
FYI, I've no problems to update an F19 system.
>
> I'm totally in limbo--I cannot fix Tbird because yum is hosed. I can't
> reins
Another clue: I copied a binary file from the system drive to another, and on
each drive to a local subfolder. cmp is reporting differences in all of them.
What the hell is going on? Is this thing crazy or possessed?
No one wants to take a swing at this one?
I'm totally in limbo--I cannot
No one wants to take a swing at this one?
I'm totally in limbo--I cannot fix Tbird because yum is hosed. I can't
reinstall F19 because
my media is or became hosed, and the iso is hosed. I'm pretty consistent about
checking downloads and media before burning and installing, and I'm pretty sur
I am having problems with Firefox and Thunderbird (Tbird crashed hard the other
day), and I thought I'd run yum update (auto-notification is pretty flaky in
Mate) before reinstalling both of them. It seems that yum is broken also. I
keep getting the following message:
[root@otis yumsql]# yu
On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 10:52:06 -0500, Ralph Blach wrote:
> When I try to do a an update of fedora 17, I always get a broken dependency
> on kernel-tools.x86_64 0:3.6.8-2.fc17
> kernel-tools-libs.x86_64 0:3.6.8-2.fc17 I have been getting the message
Get familiar with the Fedora Updates System (bodh
Am 02.12.2012 16:52, schrieb Ralph Blach:
> When I try to do a an update of fedora 17, I always get a broken dependency
> on kernel-tools.x86_64 0:3.6.8-2.fc17
> kernel-tools-libs.x86_64 0:3.6.8-2.fc17 I have been getting the message
>
> Loaded plugins: langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit
> R
When I try to do a an update of fedora 17, I always get a broken dependency on
kernel-tools.x86_64 0:3.6.8-2.fc17
kernel-tools-libs.x86_64 0:3.6.8-2.fc17 I have been getting the message
Loaded plugins: langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
--->
On 08/05/12 06:08, Gene Smith wrote:
Running f16. Didn't notice these were marked as fc12. Obviously stuff
hanging around from previous upgrade. Removing them fixes the problem.
Thanks!
Might be prudent to run:
yum distro-sync
It will ensure only those rpms available in F16 repos,
will be on
Ed Greshko wrote, On 05/08/2012 12:41 AM:
On 05/08/2012 12:24 PM, Gene Smith wrote:
Apparently, some items still want python 2.6 instead of new python 2.7. From
today's failed yum update:
Running Transaction Check
ERROR with transaction check vs depsolve:
python(abi) = 2.6 is needed by (install
On 05/08/2012 12:24 PM, Gene Smith wrote:
> Apparently, some items still want python 2.6 instead of new python 2.7. From
> today's failed yum update:
>
> Running Transaction Check
> ERROR with transaction check vs depsolve:
> python(abi) = 2.6 is needed by (installed) alchemist-1.0.37-8.fc12.x86_64
Apparently, some items still want python 2.6 instead of new python 2.7.
From today's failed yum update:
Running Transaction Check
ERROR with transaction check vs depsolve:
python(abi) = 2.6 is needed by (installed) alchemist-1.0.37-8.fc12.x86_64
python(abi) = 2.6 is needed by (installed)
system
I just removed the i686 packages with
rpm -ev mesa-dri-drivers-7.11-1.fc15.i686
mesa-dri-llvmcore-7.11-0.11.20110525.0.fc15.i686
llvm-libs-2.8-12.fc15.i686
then yum update could proceed, and now all my packages are up to date.
Then "yum check" only reported one remaining problem:
chess-1.0
I'll try removing the packages you mentioned and report back.
As far as 32-bit, yes, unfortunately. Thank Adobe for that :( I
needed Acrobat reader because of some PDF file which the open source
alternatives just couldn't handle. But Adobe is infamous for only
delivering 32-bit apps for Linux, w
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Deron Meranda wrote:
> I'm getting closer, but am still having problems...
>
> I manually and selectively ran yum updates to all those packages that
> didn't cause errors, and so I have now successfully updated most
> things. Only the following packages still ne
I'm getting closer, but am still having problems...
I manually and selectively ran yum updates to all those packages that
didn't cause errors, and so I have now successfully updated most
things. Only the following packages still needing updated are
*stuck* where I can't proceed:
libmtp.x86_64
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Deron Meranda wrote:
> I had a Fedora 15 (x86_64) system that I successfully upgraded to
> Fedora 16, using the DVD image.
>
> Now, however, when I attempt to run "yum update" on the new F16
> system, yum fails during the transaction check. I did make sure that
>
I had a Fedora 15 (x86_64) system that I successfully upgraded to
Fedora 16, using the DVD image.
Now, however, when I attempt to run "yum update" on the new F16
system, yum fails during the transaction check. I did make sure that
everything was fully updated in F15 just prior to the upgrade, and
On 11/05/2010 12:33 AM, mike cloaked wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Kevin J. Cummings
> wrote:
>
>
>> Its in updates-testing. It was quite a few packages when I installed it
>> just prior to upgrading to F14
>>
> I believe it is now fixed in the updates repo - so try agai
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Kevin J. Cummings
wrote:
> Its in updates-testing. It was quite a few packages when I installed it
> just prior to upgrading to F14
I believe it is now fixed in the updates repo - so try again and it should work.
--
mike c
--
users mailing list
users@lists.
On 11/04/2010 11:04 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> I got everything from the lastest round of updates applied but Thunderbird:
>
> yum update
> Loaded plugins: presto, refresh-packagekit
> Setting up Update Process
> Resolving Dependencies
> --> Running transaction check
> ---> Package thunderbird.
I got everything from the lastest round of updates applied but Thunderbird:
yum update
Loaded plugins: presto, refresh-packagekit
Setting up Update Process
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package thunderbird.i686 0:3.0.10-1.fc12 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:32:34 -0430, Patrick wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 18:30 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > The system has informed me via the Update Applet that evolution needs to
> > be upgraded to 2.30.2-1, but the upgrade fails with these messages:
> > could not do simulate: em
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:25:00 +0200, Frank wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 12:26:57 +0100 Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
> > On 06/27/2010 02:30 AM, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > > The system has informed me via the Update Applet that evolution needs to
> > > be upgraded to 2.30.2-1, but the upgrade fails with
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 12:26:57 +0100 Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
> On 06/27/2010 02:30 AM, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > The system has informed me via the Update Applet that evolution needs to
> > be upgraded to 2.30.2-1, but the upgrade fails with these messages:
> > could not do simulate: empat
On 06/27/2010 02:30 AM, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> The system has informed me via the Update Applet that evolution needs to
> be upgraded to 2.30.2-1, but the upgrade fails with these messages:
> could not do simulate: empathy-2.30.1.1-1.fc13.x86_64 requires
> libedataserver-1.2.so.11()(64
On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 21:32 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 18:30 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > The system has informed me via the Update Applet that evolution needs to
> > be upgraded to 2.30.2-1, but the upgrade fails with these messages:
> > could not do si
On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 18:30 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> The system has informed me via the Update Applet that evolution needs to
> be upgraded to 2.30.2-1, but the upgrade fails with these messages:
> could not do simulate: empathy-2.30.1.1-1.fc13.x86_64 requires
> libedataserver-1.2.
Nope, I'm seeing the same thing.
On 06/26/2010 08:30 PM, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> The system has informed me via the Update Applet that evolution needs to
> be upgraded to 2.30.2-1, but the upgrade fails with these messages:
> could not do simulate: empathy-2.30.1.1-1.fc13.x86_64 require
The system has informed me via the Update Applet that evolution needs to
be upgraded to 2.30.2-1, but the upgrade fails with these messages:
could not do simulate: empathy-2.30.1.1-1.fc13.x86_64 requires
libedataserver-1.2.so.11()(64bit)
gnome-panel-2.30.0-1.fc13.x86_64 requires
l
On 05/10/2010 09:06 PM, Len J wrote:
> File not found:
>
> Error Type:
> Error Value: Error getting repository data for installed, repository
> not found
> File : /usr/share/PackageKit/helpers/yum/yumBackend.py, line 3125,
> in
Try a yum update instead.
Rahul
--
users mailing list
users@list
On Mon, 10 May 2010 13:07:22 -0700
Len J wrote:
>
> It has been running for about 2 months.
And this error has been happening all that time?
open a terminal and:
su -c 'yum clean all'
su -c 'yum update'
and see if that works.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
users ma
It has been running for about 2 months.
> Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 10:02:38 -0600
> From: ke...@scrye.com
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: security update fails
>
> On Mon, 10 May 2010 08:36:55 -0700
> Len J wrote:
>
> >
> > File not fo
On Mon, 10 May 2010 08:36:55 -0700
Len J wrote:
>
> File not found:
>
> Error Type:
> Error Value: Error getting repository data for installed, repository
> not found File : /usr/share/PackageKit/helpers/yum/yumBackend.py,
> line 3125, in main()
> File : /usr/share/PackageKit/helpers/yum/yu
File not found:
Error Type:
Error Value: Error getting repository data for installed, repository not found
File : /usr/share/PackageKit/helpers/yum/yumBackend.py, line 3125, in
main()
File : /usr/share/PackageKit/helpers/yum/yumBackend.py, line 3122, in main
backend.dispatcher(sys.a
2010/1/16 Jamie Griffin :
> Does anyone know how i can fix this?
Richard Hughes posted the following to someone else with he same problem:
"Just do (as root):
yum update -y yum rpm PackageKit gnome-packagekit
then reboot, and all will be right with the world."
It worked for the other poster, s
I've just installed fedora 12 (i386). Got loads of software updates, but
it fails with this error:
Error Type:
Error Value: Error getting repository data for installed, repository not
found
File : /usr/share/PackageKit/helpers/yum/yumBackend.py, line 3125, in
main()
File : /usr/sha
89 matches
Mail list logo
